http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:54:52 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/04/21/122952.php#comment-581755 I agree that the Cho tape offered nothing that wasn't already established and it wasn't in the public interest to show the tapes. What bothers me in this particular instance is NBC News and other organizations receiving the tapes and promoting them as attractions - watch <em>Today</em> for more Cho - and then going so far as to compare said heavy coverage as "pornography" (as ABC News did) after the media backlash began and the sensationalist tone had been established. It just struck me as backpedalling. 581755@blogcritics.org Sun, 22 Apr 2007 19:54:52 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/04/21/122952.php#comment-581730 Disagree. The key question, I think, is whether the broadcast of the killer's tapes served any public interest. Airing terrorist tapes, for example, gives information on the kind of people we are fighting. Showing photos of Abu Ghraib shows us what can go wrong with our military in certain circumstances. These kinds of things may be painful to see, but they are valuable, even essential, for democracies. I just don't see any kind of equivalent purpose in the broadcast of the Virgina Tech killer's tape. <a href="http://www.paullevinson.net/archives/nbc_wrong_to_release_the_kille.phtml">NBC Wrong to Release Killer's Tapes</a> 581730@blogcritics.org Sun, 22 Apr 2007 18:29:22 EDT